I guess it depends on what version of the social contact you think we're all operating with. I'd say the quite minor inconvenience of someone ahead of you in line trying to start a conversation is part of what you sign up for when you go out in public. That is, as long as the initiator is prepared to take the hint when it's clear you don't want to talk.
I take it as a design question. Do we want a society designed for people who like to interact or do we want to design it after the desire for limiting interaction as much as possible?
One time, on a crowded train, an elderly lady just started talking about her visit to her lovely grandchildren and what they had been up to since her last visit. It wasn't a short story and to her it was the most fascinating experience in the world. While telling it she turned her head towards anyone who wasn't looking at her. She had quite the powerful gaze. She wasn't screaming but had a loud voice.
Eventually someone rudely interrupted her to ask her if she could stop talking. She just bluntly told him to go sit some place else. "The train is full of people silently gazing out of the window, people who forgot how to talk with others. What are you waiting for? Off you go?"
At that point the laughter made it apparent that people sitting really far away were also listening to her. She kept staring at him and kept telling him to just go away, go be miserable some place else, don't expect us to share your misery. Being made the center of attention everyone else was also looking at him. Eventually he just got up and left (producing even more laughter)
The moment he got up she continued her story exactly where she left of with a tone of voice as if the entire incident never happened.
The most interesting thing I took from the experience was how confident she was that a person who doesn't like to talk with strangers also doesn't talk back when ordered to piss off. Her involving 30 random strangers in her monologue also ruled out any physical retaliation.
After the story about her visit to the grandchildren she told us she always talked to strangers, she did this her entire life and wasn't about to stop. She got to know many nice people. She didn't like how the last few decades this made her the center of attention but felt obligated to remind us things weren't always like this.
We shouldn't let people like the guy who just left force us to stop talking. They are overstepping the bounds. It isn't for them to decide who you can or cant talk to. "Who does he think he is being so disrespectful to an elderly lady?" When she grew up one would listen to what older people had to say. They've been around, you might learn something.
It was a hilarious experience. I've been talking to random strangers ever since. At times you run into introvert people who obviously didn't talk with anyone for years. Without saying anything they reinforce the idea we should keep doing this.
Trust me, you can PM anyone you like on irc. If they say you can't do that you just tell them you just did.
The funniest resolve for the protesters you inevitably run into when doing this has to be....
> Do we want a society designed for people who like to interact or do we want to design it after the desire for limiting interaction as much as possible?
Personally I would prefer the first one. Like most of people in here, I'd risk a guess.
On the other hand I don't think it's good to have people like your "elderly lady" just casually imposing themselves on a train full of others.
The point of the story was that she wasn't actually imposing. It's just that the kid she told off was acting like he was representing the other 30 people. The rest of them were probably either indifferent or were entertained by her which is how most people are when you actually talk to them like human beings.
Setting the standard that telling people about your day or telling them about yourself is "imposing" is exactly the kind of thinking that's producing our society where nobody ever has a real conversation unless it's via introduction by a third party and an app first.
This is why when I go out in general (I've lived in Boston, NYC and now Jakarta), I've just wore my head phones. I'm a somewhat tall-ish black guy, so people don't usually want to have a random conversation with me, and if they do (or anyone else is particularly loud about something I could care less about) I can choose to ignore or (dis)engage more easily with an acceptable excuse without becoming annoyed.
>Setting the standard that telling people about your day or telling them about yourself is "imposing" is exactly the kind of thinking that's producing our society where nobody ever has a real conversation unless it's via introduction by a third party and an app first.
Does "real conversation" have to happen in any particular medium, or is it the case that some prefer other mediums for "real conversation" over others?
That is a good question; I will admit that for many people, online conversations are much more meaningful and comfortable than ones "in the flesh". But what I personally like about real conversations (as opposed to virtual) is essentially that you communicate a lot of things i.e. its both verbal and non-verbal. So I think real conversations make more sense to me in only that I understand another human being a lot better than if it were just text on a screen.
Also, real conversations can lead to real friendships and such; I've found that hard to do virtually.
> Do we want a society designed for people who like to interact or do we want to design it after the desire for limiting interaction as much as possible?
How about a society designed to allow people to choose the level of interaction they want dynamically?
>Do we want a society designed for people who like to interact or do we want to design it after the desire for limiting interaction as much as possible?
Second of course. People should interact only if both of them want/need this.
I one time walked into a bar and took the seat on the other side of the corner from the only guy sitting there.
I told him about my day. He looked angry at me with very large eyes and a big frown. I just continued my story as if nothing happened. He kept the face on for the first 2 minutes of it. I order a beer and one for my friend here. The added rage in his facial expression was hilarious. I continued talking about my day while drinking the beer. He looked at the glass for a few seconds and decided to drink from it.
The new facial expression was tired but slightly impressed by the way I continued to talk to him completely undisturbed.
Eventually, after 3 beers, the story about my day came to visiting a bar with only one other guest who apparently went to a public place expecting not to be talked to.
He laughed really hard. I said, hey, you got to work with what you have.
He then told the story of the very shitty day he was having. I forgot the details but it was truly a shit day.
> She kept staring at him and kept telling him to just go away, go be miserable some place else, don't expect us to share your misery
From my experience it’s females are more likely to use this argumentation to marginalize the enemy - “nobody wants you, you are alone, go away loser”, etc. Someone might not want to share your misery some time in the future, elderly lady.
friendly conversation, sure, but there's enough people who refuse to take a hint that their romantic overture is unwanted. they might even retaliate with really aggressive, angry behavior.
this is rare, but i think it has poisoned the well in some places -- especially for women, these unusual but very frightening situations can make the whole thing have a negative expected value.
